Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42382450›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2026

Predictive accuracy of machine learning and markerless gait analysis for return-to-sport following lower extremity injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rajat Satija, Daphika Dkhar

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rajat SatijaSports Injury Centre, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Daphika DkharDepartment of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Anterior cruciate ligament and lower extremity injuries impose a substantial burden in sports medicine, yet conventional assessments fail to capture the dynamic nature of injury risk and recovery. Machine learning and markerless gait analysis offer potential improvements in predicting return-to-sport readiness and re-injury risk, but their clinical reliability remains uncertain. This review evaluates the predictive accuracy and clinical applicability of these approaches. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and CINAHL was conducted up to March 2026. Studies involving adults with lower extremity injuries using machine learning or markerless systems and reporting predictive metrics were included. Pooled accuracy estimates were calculated using a fixed-effect model with logit transformation. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis. For return-to-sport readiness (six wearable sensor studies), pooled accuracy was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.95; Conclusion: Wearable sensor-based machine learning models achieve high predictive accuracy for return-to-sport and re-injury risk. However, methodological heterogeneity, reliance on internal validation, and absence of external validation limit generalisability. Standardised reporting and rigorous external validation are urgently needed before clinical implementation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261352158, identifier CRD420261352158.

Indexed as

ACL injurymachine learningmarkerless motion capturepredictive modellingreturn to sportwearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID42382450
PMCPMC13314457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.